Time Warner buys 10% stake in Hulu, will offer live streams of TNT, TBS, CNN, more

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Time Warner's Turner networks -- including TNT and TBS -- will be available in live streaming form on Hulu in early 2017, thanks to a $583 million deal between the two companies.




The deal gives Time Warner a 10 percent stake in Hulu, valuing the streaming service at about $5.8 billion. Though Hulu is mostly known as a home for on-demand content, the new deal will bring TNT, TBS, CNN, Turner Classic Movies, TruTV, Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, and Boomerang live streams to the service.

Already stakeholders in Hulu are a number of major media companies: Disney, Fox, and Comcast. The addition of Turner networks will come alongside an "intuitive and personalized interface" that will offer both live and on-demand content across a range of devices --?Hulu is available on both iOS and Apple TV.

"Our investment in Hulu underscores Time Warner's commitment to supporting and developing new platforms for the delivery of high-quality content and great consumer experiences to audiences around the globe," said Time Warner Chairman and Chief Executive Jeff Bewekes.

Pricing for the new live streaming channels remains unknown. Hulu currently charges $7.99 a month for content with limited commercials, or commercial-free access at $11.99 per month.




Hulu first confirmed back in May that it planned to launch a live TV streaming service in early 2017. With Wednesday's announcement, Time Warner's Turner networks are the first to sign on for that new service.

Rumors have suggested that both Disney and Fox could be on board as well, but no such announcements have been made.

Apple, meanwhile, has been working behind the scenes to create its own live TV subscription service, but it has failed to forge deals with content owners. Even Apple's closest media partner, Disney, is said to have balked when the company pitched an offer seen as lowballing.

This week, Time Warner's CEO also talked about rumors of a potential takeover by Apple, but dismissed those claims as not "serious." Bewkes said that talks between Time Warner and Apple were mostly about technology and user interface improvements.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17

    I cut the cord over a decade ago.  The last thing I want is live stream TV.

    Some of the shows on those networks I'll watch, if they fold them into my Hulu subscription, but if they thing they are going to get me (or most people, I expect) back on the model where we have to be ready to watch a show at a specific time, they are dreaming.
    mwhitenolamacguy
  • Reply 2 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,698member

    I cut the cord over a decade ago.  The last thing I want is live stream TV.

    Some of the shows on those networks I'll watch, if they fold them into my Hulu subscription, but if they thing they are going to get me (or most people, I expect) back on the model where we have to be ready to watch a show at a specific time, they are dreaming.
    Live and ON DEMAND. In other words watch on your schedule if "live" isn't your taste. There are some viewers who just can't wait to see their favorite show and for them "live" is their preference. Others like you (and me for the most part) might like to set our own schedule, perhaps even binge-watch several episodes in a row.
    edited August 2016 mwhitejbdragon
  • Reply 3 of 17
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    Fear not!

    Soon we'll all be able to watch great Apple funded shows, like the one made by Will.I.Am!

    Game of Thrones watch out!

    This is just a wild guess on my part, but why do I have a feeling that any Apple funded shows will appeal to me about as much as an exclusive on Apple Music?
    rogifan_newdasanman69
  • Reply 4 of 17
    They better fold them into the Hulu subscription or they will lose subscribers.  Moreover the current Hulu UI sucks, it should be reworked to something like the HBO Now UI or the new ABC UI.  They should use separate Apps for the live stations, they should also include ABC, NBC, CBS live streams into the fold.

    We are starting to see competition in the streaming  world.  For example news networks like CNN and MSNBC will have to provide more live streaming options other than the cable providers, including ad based free streaming because otherwise, 24-hour news networks like CBS News (CBSN) and Sky News will eat them for breakfast.

    Cord cutters rejoice !
    mwhite
  • Reply 5 of 17
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    sog35 said:
    Not having to listen/watch commercials on Netflix/AppleMusic and Safari with Ad blocker is pure bliss.
    Why mention Netflix?

    I don't recall ever seeing any ads on Netflix.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,698member
    sog35 said:
    I would pay $200 to have on demand any show at any time, and no commercials.

    Advertisements are the bane of society.

    Not having to listen/watch commercials on Netflix/AppleMusic and Safari with Ad blocker is pure bliss.

    I'm so sick of commericals. I'm willing to pay big $ to get of commercials and I'm sure many other are too.
    Between Hulu and Nexflix you're more than halfway there aren't you? Until live sports and local news are somehow financially capable of being supported by viewers you won't ever see a complete end to ads. No different than websites, blogs, newspapers, magazines (even mom'n pop restaurant menus) and such that are only possible for you to enjoy because of the money received from advertisers like Proctor and Gamble, GM and Apple in an effort to sell you products.

     Get over the ad stuff. It's nothing new, been done for centuries. Do like I do, block where you can and ignore the ones that you do see if you have no interest in that product. I'd guess some folks here that say they hate ads don't mind 'em so much if they're Apple ads. 
    edited August 2016 mike1
  • Reply 7 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,698member
    sog35 said:
    apple ][ said:
    sog35 said:
    Not having to listen/watch commercials on Netflix/AppleMusic and Safari with Ad blocker is pure bliss.
    Why mention Netflix?

    I don't recall ever seeing any ads on Netflix.
    I'm saying those services don't have commercials and that's why I love them.

    I would be willing to pay a ton more to get commercial free tv
    Get a few million folks to all commit to a few hundred a year in order to see broadcast content ad-free and you might get your wish. 
  • Reply 8 of 17
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    Get a few million folks to all commit to a few hundred a year in order to see broadcast content ad-free and you might get your wish. 
    I can't be the only one right?

    Average person watches about 5 hours of TV a day. That's 150 hours a month. Commercials take at least 15-20 hours of that.  That is time wasted.

    Lets say you get paid $30 an hour. That's $450-$600 of time waste right there. I'd be more than willing to get rid of all commercials at an additional fee of $100 per month.

    And shows suck also because its starts to get interesting and then BOOM commercial of some old dude wanting some action. By the time the shows starts again (after 4 mintues of commericals) you forget what happenned and all momentum is lost. After watching shows on Netflix its almost impossible for me to watch live TV with commericals.
    If you're wasting $450-600 of time watching ad's stop watching TV at work. 
    Your own personal time has no monetory  value unless of course you can charge someone.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    sog35 said:
    If you're wasting $450-600 of time watching ad's stop watching TV at work. 
    Your own personal time has no monetory  value unless of course you can charge someone.
    That's bogus man.  Instead of watching those 20 hours of commercials a month I'd rather work.

    Of course personal time has monetary value. I choose not to work overtime or take a 2nd job because I want more personal time.

    Its the same reason why I don't change my own oil or mow my own lawn. 
    Due to Netflix, Amazon prime, BBC I player and other on-demand solutions I rarely see ads, though thankfully the amount of ad's we have on this side of the pond is no where as bad as you guys in the USA seem to suffer from.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,932member
    In time, HULU+ is just going to blow then it already does. The service is unwatchable unless you pay the higher cost for commercial free. The last time I used their service with the free 30 days, I watch 1 show and that was it. I couldn't take it. It was far worse then broadcast tv. I was forced to watch like 4 of the same 2 broke girls commercials in a row a number of times in a 30 minute program. How can anyone put up with crap like that? You can't FF past that crap, you instead sit there watching the countdown timer and the 1 out of 4, 2 out of 4, 3 out of 4 up top, and it's just no thanks. Doesn't Comcast also own a big chunk of Hulu also. The problem is these cable company's will just screw up this service eve worse in time. They're going to do what they've always done. I'll take my Antenna and my TIVO, and record all my broadcast TV shows for free, and have 1 button press commercial skip and most of that content. Throw in Netflix where there's no commercials and a done of great content, and a little Amazon Prime, even though I got that for 2nd day shipping long ago which is also commercial free. No thanks HULU!!!! Hulu's Interface does stink. But I also hear SlingTV's interface isn't that good either. I hear good things with Sony's Vue service, but that's costly also and really you're just switching from a cable company to Sony. I don't see that as much better. If you're going to cut the cord to sign up for a bunch of expensive services, why cut the cord?
  • Reply 11 of 17
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    recently i tried some of the US cable network apps on ATV, where they offer popular shows on demand. it's real hard to watch two minutes of commercials for this content after years of streaming and purchasing. 
  • Reply 12 of 17
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    sog35 said:
    apple ][ said:
    Why mention Netflix?

    I don't recall ever seeing any ads on Netflix.
    I'm saying those services don't have commercials and that's why I love them.

    I would be willing to pay a ton more to get commercial free tv
    I see now. I agree. I can not stand commercials myself either, and when I'm watching something, the last thing that I wish to be, is to be interrupted by commercials.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    Get a few million folks to all commit to a few hundred a year in order to see broadcast content ad-free and you might get your wish. 
    I can't be the only one right?

    Average person watches about 5 hours of TV a day. That's 150 hours a month. Commercials take at least 15-20 hours of that.  That is time wasted.

    Lets say you get paid $30 an hour. That's $450-$600 of time waste right there. I'd be more than willing to get rid of all commercials at an additional fee of $100 per month.

    Where did you get that 5 hours a day figure? Assuming it's correct, the distribution may be a bit skewed toward those who binge watch television. I don't know whether they're really valuable to advertisers. The $30/hr figure is also a bit misleading. That translates to approximately $60k/year on an assumption of 40 hours per week. Somewhere around $50k you start to drift toward exempt salaried roles and those that disallow overtime. Those additional hours do not necessarily hold the same economic value, not to mention that you're comparing before tax income to a fee paid after tax. I think you may want to reconsider your approximation.
    singularitygatorguy
  • Reply 14 of 17

    It's pretty awesome that Hulu lets you stream Criterion releases. I would have loved to have that feature.

    It's a pity that Criterion's licences are so restricted that they cannot sell or stream outside of the US. I buy all my stuff from Amazon, as usual.

  • Reply 15 of 17
    After reading more info on this live streaming effort by Hulu, I predict that it will fail miserably.

    They plan to charge $40 per month for content from ABC, Fox, NBC and TimeWarner.  (10 bucks per content provider?)
    CBS All Access is not included and costs $5.99 per month.  CBSN is free. CBS may be offering a better deal.

    The Apple deal is looking better and better every day for the networks.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,698member
    After reading more info on this live streaming effort by Hulu, I predict that it will fail miserably.

    They plan to charge $40 per month for content from ABC, Fox, NBC and TimeWarner.  (10 bucks per content provider?)
    CBS All Access is not included and costs $5.99 per month.  CBSN is free. CBS may be offering a better deal.

    The Apple deal is looking better and better every day for the networks.
    What deal is that?  FWIW I doubt Hulu's "live package" will come in at $40 either when it finally rolls out. 
    edited August 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.